New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

A New York City employment litigation case centers on the issue of whether employers have to give notice to their employees of a layoff.

Our Manhattan employment litigation attorneys know that the answer is: It depends.

We'll explain farther down, but here's what we know so far of this case:

According to Reuters, a once-prominent law firm (the 11th largest in the country) recently laid off 450 employees, following a mass exodus of 120 partners and three out of four co-chairmen.

At its peak, the firm was the employer of some 1,300 lawyers. That was back in 2007. Now, federal regulators are trying to sort through what could be a huge headache: the fact that the firm's pension plan is underfunded by about $80 million for some 1,800 people.

The firm has been mired in debt for several years, and when it asked once-highly paid partners to take a salary cut, a large number of them left.

The problems have only continued from there, including a number of lawsuits.

In one case, a janitorial service is suing for about $300,000, claiming the firm, with offices in Manhattan, has failed to pay its cleaning bill up through the end of April.

And now, it's being sued by a former employer who has filed a class action claim, saying the firm did not give her and other employees the required 60 days notice prior to the lay-off.

Employees were warned on May 4 that the firm may shutter its doors. However, it didn't actually give employees affirmative word that their employment would be terminated, effective May 11.

So does this woman, and those in the class, have a case?

Possibly.

The federal government has what is known as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. This was passed in the summer of 1988 and became effective early the following year.

What WARN does is give workers protection by mandating that employers provide at least 60 days advance notice anytime there is an anticipated mass layoff or plant closing. It must be given either directly to those workers who may be affected or to their union representatives.

Employers who would fall under WARN's purview would be those that within the last year, have had more than 100 full-time employees who have worked there for longer than six months. Government agencies are exempt. The employees that would be covered would include both salaried and hourly workers and managerial staff and supervisors. The only ones not entitled to such notice would be business partners.

However, there are exceptions to WARN, and this situation may fall into that. For example, for plant closings, business partners can avoid the notice if there is any situation in which there is an opportunity to seek new capital or business and providing notice would destroy any chances for tha.

There's also an exception for "unforeseeable business circumstances." This would be closings and layoffs caused by some business circumstance that was not foreseeable at the time of notice. This is probably the defense that the law firm in this case will fall back on.

And finally, there is an exception for a natural disaster. This is example is pretty self-explanatory.

If an employer is going to use any of the above-mentioned reasons for giving less than 60 days notice, the burden of proof lies with the company.

Continue reading "New York Employment Litigation: Lay-Off Legalities" »

Great Neck employment lawyers know that unpaid internships can be a great way for new workers to get their foot in the door.

It's important to note, however, that Great Neck employment litigation can result when companies aren't careful to walk the fine line between having someone learn the ropes and having someone carry all the ropes - unpaid.

This issue recently came to light when several large media companies were sued in New York City by former unpaid interns who said they were taken advantage of by their employers. Instead of being trained and gaining footing in the field, the interns said they were simply providing free labor by completing tasks that they believed had nothing to do with the industry.

So while it may be no big deal for an intern to run out and grab the morning meeting coffee every once in a while, it becomes an issue when that's all they're doing. If you're an intern and all you're doing is menial work, there's likely a problem.

In the case of this employment pay dispute, the former interns said they were responsible for making coffee, taking lunch orders, coordinating deliveries, doing secretarial work and managing expense reports. The workers have alleged that if the companies had not used them, they would have had to hire someone to complete those tasks.

In some circles, the theory is that unpaid interns should almost be an inconvenience for the employer. They are supposed to be training those interns and making sure that he or she actually gets something valuable out of the experience.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, which is spelled out by the Department of Labor, offers a six-factor checklist that lays out the criteria that for-profit companies have to follow with regard to unpaid interns.

Because interns aren't technically employees, they don't have to be paid minimum wage or overtime. However, there is a fine line between who is an intern and who is an employee. Someone can't simply agree that they'll be an intern, meaning they can't just wave their right to fair wages. There is certain criteria has to be met.

Here is what the Fair Labor Standards Act says:

1. An internship is akin to a training that would be provided in an educational environment;

2. The experience of being an intern is for the benefit of the intern;

3. An intern can't replace or displace regular employees. He or she must work under the close supervision of the staff that is already there;

4. An employer doesn't get any immediate advantage from the intern's presence, and in fact, in some cases, the operations of the employer might be impeded;

5. The employer doesn't have to offer the intern a job at the end of the internship;

6. Both parties must understand that the intern is not eligible for payment for his or her time there.

Continue reading "Great Neck Employment Law: Unpaid Internships" »

New York City employment law is clear: illegal immigrants must be paid overtime too.

New York City employment lawyers were closely following the case involving Cindy's Total Care Inc., a nail salon in Manhattan, and the U.S. Department of Labor.

Originally, the department sued the company, saying it owed overtime pay to its employees. The nail salon sued back, saying it didn't have to pay overtime because the workers were illegal immigrants. Who won?

The Department of Labor - to the tune of more than $245,00 in back pay and court costs to some 32 employees. The nail salon has also been ordered to fix its violations with regard to record keeping and overtime pay, as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

We all know that under federal law, that hourly workers must be paid overtime for any work they do over and above 40 hours. This case, Solis v. Cindy's Total Care Inc., however, resolves the issue of how illegal immigrants factor into the equation. This is actually not a new development. Courts have long held that employers have to pay their workers a fair wage, regardless of whether of their immigration status.

This all started by an investigation into the luxury spa and salon's practices that was kick-started by the department's New York City office in the Wage and Hour Division. That investigation uncovered the fact that employees were being mandated to work more than 40 hours each week and were not being paid overtime - that is, a time-and-a-half rate, which is required under the law. Instead, the owner was paying her workers a set rate for each day, no matter how many hours they had actually worked. Most of her employees were working 10 hours each day for six days every week.

What's more, the department revealed that the salon owner was keeping no record of how many hours were actually worked and how much each employee was being paid.

Maria Rosado, who heads the New York City division of the labor department, said that low-wage workers in this type of industry are vulnerable and often taken advantage of. She said they are afraid to speak out about wage violations because they may fear retaliation or even deportation. She said, however, that the labor department would aggressively investigate such claims, particularly because not only are workers' rights infringed upon, but it gives those employers who skirt the law an unfair advantage over competitors.

The breakdown of the findings were as follows: $118,000 in overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages (which are paid directly to the employees affected); $8,400 in trial costs.

The Fair Labor Standards Act mandates that workers have to be paid at least the federal minimum wage - which is $7.25 each hour - as well as time-and-one-half of their hourly rate for each hour that they work over 40 hours.

Additionally, the law mandates that businesses have to keep accurate and thorough records of how much time their workers are on-the-clock, and how much they earn.

Continue reading "New York City Employment Law: Illegal Immigrants Also Deserve OT" »

Great Neck employment litigation attorneys over the last year have noted an increasing number of overtime disputes. Great Neck employment litigation cases in this vein come from almost every industry and from employees of varying positions.

It appears we are far from alone in this. The federal Department of Labor is reporting a nearly 40 percent increase in the number of overtime wage lawsuits filed within the last year alone. The number of cases ballooned from nearly 8,800 in 2010 to 12,000 last year.

And now, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide on a case involving pharmaceutical company sales representatives who say they were wrongly denied overtime pay. The business, GlaxoSmithKline, contends the representatives weren't entitled to it because of their position within the company. The case is called Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., and justices will rule on whether salespeople are entitled to overtime and, more specifically, whether those selling pharmaceuticals are entitled to it.

The high court will hear the case this month, but a decision isn't likely to come until at least early summer.

In the meantime, there are other similar high-profile cases that have set somewhat of a precedent. There was Mario Batali, a chef with a television show who ended up settling with employees for more than $5 million over unpaid tips and overtime. And then there was Norvartis, another drug making company that shoveled over $99 million in a class action settlement stemming from overtime complaints made by its salespeople.

Both sides of the overtime issue point fingers at the other in saying they're to blame for the rising cases. The workers say employers are greedily trying to get around the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers, meanwhile, say the laws are somewhat archaic, confusing and difficult to apply to the modern work place. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Part of the increasing litigation has to do with the fact that employees these days are simply more aware of their rights and what actions they can take when those standards are violated.

On the other hand, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938. This was at a time when workplaces looked very different than they do today. The advent of technology has altered not only the way in which we do business, but the core of the issue remains that workers should be paid fair wages for the hours they work.

But as in almost any area of law, it's been subject to a great deal of interpretation over the years. That has resulted in conflicting case law that has led to some confusion - which is why The Supreme Court is stepping in, hopefully to clarify.

It's important no matter what side you are on to consult with an experienced Great Neck employment litigation attorney who can help you sort through the specific details of your case to determine which statutes may apply and explore all your options.

Continue reading "Great Neck Overtime Disputes Similar to Case Before SCOTUS" »

It's never fashionable to exploit your workers.

That's what one designer may soon learn in the course of a $50 million lawsuit alleging retaliation for New York City workers' compensation claims, as well as outright abuses and working conditions that have been compared to a sweatshop.

Our New York City workers' compensation attorneys have been following the heavy media coverage surrounding the case of fashion designer Alexander Wang. Some 30 current and former employees are suing Wang, alleging appalling work conditions, in which they were made to work 16-hour days in stifling, claustrophobic areas. What's more, some workers have said that when they suffered injuries, as a result of these conditions, they filed workers' compensation claims, and were subsequently fired.

These workers are suing for $50 million.

Wang, who reportedly earned $25 million last year, vehemently denies the allegations.

The New York Department of Labor specifically addresses issues within the apparel industry, which has been known historically to use "sweatshop" labor in order to cheaply and quickly manufacture clothing that they can sell for extremely low prices, thereby beating out the competition, or by selling them at high rates, thereby ensuring the profit margin will be sizable.

Sweatshops are identified by a myriad of different aspects, including: fire hazards, electrical hazards, safety hazards, health hazards, structural dangers, child labor, industrial homework, registration violations, tax irregularities and wage violations.

However, usually when we think of sweat shops, we think of overseas operations. That's because U.S. laws are stringent in terms of the working conditions it expects employers to offer. Laws in other countries aren't nearly as tough. Unfortunately, some companies have no qualms about putting profit above the rights of workers.

As the Department of Labor points out, when we do see sweatshops in the U.S., they are typically fly-by-night operations. They don't secure the proper permitting and they can quickly pick up and move across state lines if they need to in an attempt to elude the attention of authorities.

In 1996, the state of New York passed the "Hot Goods" law. This law essentially forbids the sale or distribution of clothing that has been made in sweatshops, which frequently cheat workers out of their money and pay less than the minimum wage requirements. Garment companies are registered under this law, and those that do not follow the standards can be tagged as "unlawfully manufactured."

One of the prime ways that sweatshops take advantage of workers is by paying them in cash and deducting wages that are illegal and undocumented. Here are some of the basic requirements of what garment workers must receive from their employers:

• Overtime. If a worker has logged more than 40 hours, he or she must be given one and one-half times their hourly pay rate for every hour they work.
• Children younger than 16 are not permitted to work in garment factories.
• Factories have to follow state and federal law and fire codes concerning safety. During work hours, fire exits have to be accessible and unlocked.
• All garment manufacturers have to register with the state's Department of Labor. They have to post that registration where employees can see it.
• Employees cannot be required to take anything home to work on it there.

Continue reading "New York Employment Violations Alleged Against Fashion Designer" »

The political season is heating up. As the Republicans attempt to figure out who will challenge President Barack Obama for his position, the rhetoric will be flowing big time throughout the rest of the year.

But what happens when office talk becomes political talk? Workers' opinions can fly and they may dismiss some candidates perhaps based on their race, gender or age. That can lead to hurt feelings and a possible discrimination lawsuit in Long Island.

So, what should be done? For employers, they must create well-worded policies that lay out the proper workplace behavior without trouncing First Amendment rights of their workers. On the flip side, workers who feel words of discrimination are being flung around the office must report this to their supervisors in order to fix the behavior.

The Associated Press recently wrote an article on the topic and spoke with some experts who advise companies to take steps to ensure that their workers are able to voice their opinions in the office, but at the same time make sure other employees don't feel uncomfortable in a hostile environment.

Politics, along with religion, may be the most controversial topics people can discuss in our country. Especially in 2012, where Congress is divided and all sides seem opposed to each other, this is sure to be a big water-cooler conversation piece.

The article provides a few suggestions for this situation:

Don't be overbearing
The key for a boss is not to make the work environment oppressed or overbearing. If the staff typically is hard-working, but gets sidetracked, go easy, unless there is an upcoming deadline for a project. Or, politely suggest they continue their conversation later. Allowing workers to talk during work is a morale builder and shutting it down can end up hurting productivity.

Political talk
The First Amendment doesn't allow employees at a small business to say whatever they want, but some states do allow employees to talk about politics. But these discussions can be problematic when workers get heated.

As mentioned earlier, when people talk about a particular candidate and disparage that candidate based on their race, gender or age, an employee may deem the workplace a hostile environment, which could lead to a discrimination lawsuit in New York.

The first step should be to approach the staffer who made the comments and tell him or her they were inappropriate, whether there was an issue raised by others or not. Expressing opinions is one thing, but demeaning someone is a different thing altogether. As most people know, these conversations can turn to arguments quickly. This can also be problematic.

Employees should be careful using valuable work time to get into these arguments or discussions. This can give companies legitimate reasons to fire or punish someone, even if the conversation started at break or lunch time. If it takes up work time or if company equipment is used to do it, such as e-mail, this can get the worker in trouble.

Continue reading "What Bosses Need to Know to Avoid a Long Island Discrimination Lawsuit" »

According to the New York State Department of Labor, New York's unemployment rate went unchanged from August to September, staying at 8 percent.

New York City's unemployment is slightly higher at 8.7 percent, but lower than the 9.1 national rate. While it's better to be in a position stronger than the rest of the nation, New York isn't exactly rolling out extra jobs these days.

That's why it's more important than ever that issues such as unemployment discrimination in New York
become things of the past. There have been struggles for years about discrimination in the workplace that have left workers bitter and corporations hammered with lawsuits.

Whether it be hiring and firing based on gender, race, disability or sexual orientation, these issues have been handled by courts nationwide that have ended in them being added to protected classes that can get businesses in big trouble if they violate the law.

Unemployment may soon be added to that class. In June, a law went into effect in New Jersey that banned employers from putting out advertisements for jobs that required applicants to already be employed in order to apply for the new job. The unemployed, people who really needed a job, were left out in the cold.

A New York City bureau president, the New York Daily News reports, has pushed city council members as well as state legislators to introduce bills to ban discrimination in hiring based on unemployment. He said he's found nearly two dozen examples of advertisements recently where employers sought only job seekers who already had a job.

President Barack Obama has taken the issue a step further. According to Bloomberg, the President's new jobs bill would allow companies to be sued for discrimination if they exclude unemployed applicants from trying to get a job.

But Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone said the bill could actually be more damaging to job seekers than the good it could do. He believes businesses would simply avoid unemployed applicants for fear they could come under fire for a lawsuit.

Rather than interviewing applicants who are unemployed and opening themselves up to a potential lawsuit under the proposed bill, they would simply elect not to call them back. For that reason, it's possible the bill would actually make it tougher for the unemployed to get job interviews in the first place.

Unemployment discrimination is certainly a problem, but the best way to address it may not be promoting lawsuits against businesses. As usual, Democrats who support the president's bill and Republicans, like Langone, have come out against it. Supporters say the bill goes a long way in ensuring all Americans have equal access to jobs and slam Langone, saying his comments are overblown.

It's certainly true that all New Yorkers should have an equal shot at a job, and their current job status should have nothing to do with whether they get an interview. But it's also true that companies can be selective, and sometimes discriminatory, in hiring and promotions. Whether through legislation or eye-opening jury verdicts, businesses must learn their lesson that they can't discriminate.

Continue reading "Unemployment Discrimination In New York a Hot Topic in Bad Economy" »

An appeals court has ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority didn't have to hold public hearings before it laid off more than 200 subway booth clerks last year, a reversal of a Supreme Court decision, Thomson Reuters reports.

Issues of labor law in New York have always been important, but with the economy sagging, they take on extreme importance these days.

Issues of discrimination in the workplace have no place in this country. Yet, it happens. As we reported in August, unemployment discrimination in New York is prevalent, despite efforts to stop this unfair practice.

The New York Times found in August that many job advertisements were targeting only those people who were already employed. If a person was unemployed, he or she was not welcome to apply. Can you imagine that actually happens? Fortunately, a law is now in effect that bans unemployment discrimination. And both state and federal laws prohibit hiring and firing practices based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, disability and other unlawful factors.

The subway clerk issue was based on a rule issue, not a discrimination issue. According to the Transit Workers Union, which represents MTA workers, the staff reductions couldn't go through without an opportunity for public comment since the agency decided to offer mass layoffs rather than cut down staff through attrition.

But an appeals court recently ruled that because public hearings were held on closing customer service kiosks, the different method of downsizing wasn't a big enough issue to require a new hearing.

Some of the laid-off workers were re-hired for other positions, though the overall number of workers is still down. The ruling may be appealed to the state Court of Appeals, a lawyer for the union told Thomson Reuters.

MTA has eliminated clerks in subway stations starting in 2008, instead relying on electronic vending machines. Overnight service, bus and subway lines have been slashed and administrative staff has been laid off as well.

Given the long history of unions in New York and the reliance on laws and rules put in place to protect employees, many of these labor law issues can be complex. This situation wasn't simply a matter of employees being laid off, but whether the layoffs worked within the rules and laws in place.

These complex legal matters dealing with employment must be addressed. Without legal representation, problems can linger on for generations without resolution. There always must be a person who is willing to step up and take action. If rules are broken or laws violated in a workplace setting, a watchdog or whistle-blower cannot sit back and watch the injustices happen without consequence.

In New York employment law issues, this is critical. A person's job is important not only for income, but for his or her well-being. People are typically at work more than at home, so working in a bad environment can be devastating. These issues must be addressed.

Continue reading "NY Subway Clerk Layoffs Were Legitimate, Appeals Court Says" »

Texas Roadhouse, a popular chain restaurant that has a location in East Meadow, has been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly discriminating against older job-seekers.

Jobs are so difficult to get right now that older workers have felt the squeeze. As reported on our blog recently, the number of older job seekers is at a high level right now and many believe employers aren't giving them consideration.

Employment discrimination on Long Island and elsewhere is unlawful and can't be tolerated. Our country is founded on the principal that everyone is created equally and everyone deserves a fair chance. And at a time when jobs are so scarce, employers must be willing to consider anyone who applies, not just someone of a certain age group.

According to an ABC News report, the federal agency is suing the restaurant chain after it was revealed that waiter and bartenders were rejected for various reasons. Some include:

"We think you are a little too old to work here"
It needed greeters who were "young, hot ones who are 'chipper'"

Attorneys for the EEOC, the federal agency charged with ensuring discrimination laws based on age, race, sexual orientation, gender, disability and other factors are enforced, said the restaurant's management showed a clear case of age discrimination nationwide.

Only 1.9 percent of the "front of the house employees" that customers would see, like waiters, greeters and bartenders, are 40 or older. Workers who are 40 or older are a protected class. That percentage is far lower than the standards at other restaurants, the EEOC says.

Texas Roadhouse denied the allegations and say they would fight them in court. The EEOC, however, says this isn't an uncommon problem. With the economy in a downturn, workers 55 and older have spent far more time looking for work than younger jobless Americans.

Because waiting tables or being a greeter doesn't require a certain age group, the Texas Roadhouse case appears to be a clear case of age discrimination. Older employers are stereotypically more costly because of higher wages and health insurance costs, but that's not necessarily the case. In fact, studies have shown that younger woman -- because of pregnancy costs -- actually are more expensive for health insurance purposes.

Research has found that older workers take fewer days off than younger workers and get sick less often, but do end up spending more time on sick leave when they do get injured.

At a time when jobs are at such a premium, employers seem to be taking that as a sign that they can discriminate against certain groups. But this isn't right. While they have far more applicants to choose from, they can't have a systematic plan to choose certain age or racial groups over others.

Every worker should have a chance to get a job. Obviously, there are some exceptions, where older or younger workers simply can't do the job. But for most cases -- especially in restaurant work that isn't specialized -- every applicant should get serious consideration. If not, the law has been broken.

Continue reading "Texas Roadhouse Sued By Feds For Alleged Age Discrimination on Long Island, Nationwide" »

As the New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog reported in May, New York lawmakers introduced legislation that would add the unemployed to a protected class as unemployment discrimination is an ongoing issue.

But as that bill goes through the proper channels before possibly becoming a law, employers are still openly discriminating against those who have lost their jobs and are desperately seeking work. That means that for 8 percent of the state of New York's population and 8.8 in New York City, according to the New York State Department of Labor, they are being unfairly denied interviews because they are currently unemployed. New Jersey was the first state to ban unemployment discrimination, with a law that went into effect June 1.

While companies are trying to employ only certain classes of people, this form of employment discrimination in New York is unacceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. Just because New York law hasn't thrust those who are unemployed into a protected class, such as the disabled, it doesn't mean this is proper.

Everyone should have an equal ability to gain employment, regardless of certain characteristics, such as not currently having a job. Certainly, a person shouldn't face discrimination at work for being disabled, a certain gender, age, race or status, but discrimination also shouldn't come because a person is unemployed, as many people are today. Until a law passes, making a claim might be difficult, but the issue highlights the fact that many classes are already protected under today's employment laws, including those who are discriminated against based on age, race, religion and military status.

According to the article in The New York Times, a recent review of job listings on popular websites shows that hundreds of employers would consider or strongly prefer only people currently employed or recently laid off. Even someone out of work for six months had a tough time finding work, the article reports.

The newspaper reports that given the average duration of unemployment is at an all-time high -- about nine months -- limiting qualified prospective employees to currently or recently employed probably disqualifies millions of people from work. The companies seeking work range from hotel concierges and air-conditioning technicians to business analysts and auditors.

Because those employers actually hiring are receiving likely an untold number of applications, experts say, they are being more selective.

Whether discrimination happens at the office or before even getting a job, it is unlawful and unjust. Thousands of claims of discrimination are filed each year as employees end up missing out on promotions, miss out on training opportunities or are simply cast aside for better-looking or younger workers. Despite the laws in place in New York and throughout the country, bosses and employers in record numbers ignore them and wrongly give preference to some employees over others.

With our state and our entire nation slow to recover from the effects of the Great Recession, employment discrimination shouldn't be happening. These companies should be held responsible for their actions.

Continue reading "Unemployment Discrimination Prevalent, Newspaper Reports" »

Three sisters from Long Island recently filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against a popular restaurant where they once worked, CBS News reports.

Every American enjoys certain civil rights that people in other countries often don't have. And one of those rights is to be free from harassment either in public or at work. But, inevitably, there are people who can't control themselves and for one reason or another, violate the rights of co-workers on the job.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there were 11,717 claims of sexual harassment on the job in the United States in 2010. Of those, only 16.4 percent were filed by men, but that was an all-time high. Among those claims, there were more than 1,400 settlements that resulted in $48.4 million in benefits for those who were harassed.

But there is a difference between sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. Discrimination means not getting a promotion, getting hired in the first place or missing out on a perk of the job not based on performance, but because of a person's gender. Sometimes, this discrimination is out in the open for all to see, such as a preference by the boss in hiring and firing decisions. But sometimes, it is hidden in board room meetings and private discussions that requires a whistleblower to step in and put a stop to.

Harassment is something different altogether, but can be very dangerous. Harassment means getting unwanted e-mails, sexual advances or a boss trying to trade sexual favors for promotions and other benefits. Like discrimination, this is unacceptable and unlawful.

In the case of the three sisters, they allege that their former boss and co-worker used lewd comments around them and directed at them, grabbed and touched them routinely without their consent and made the work environment uncomfortable. In 2008, a cook at the restaurant was convicted of attempted sexual abuse for attacking one of the girls in the restaurant's basement. The women, who were teenagers when they worked there, are seeking unspecified damages in federal court.

As our community becomes more and more diverse, it is crucial that our standards and laws are upheld. It is unjust that people are overlooked and treated unfairly, however the law is designed to help and correct these flaws in society. New York State has many laws that were created with people in mind and are used to give people the aid they need in tough times.

Often, people who face discrimination and a violation of civil rights feel they have little help on their side and are facing an uphill battle. But consulting with an experienced law firm is the best first step. A competent lawyer will assess your case, investigate the facts and determine the best course of action.

Perhaps a strongly worded letter to an employer will get their attention, move them to create policy changes and deal with co-workers who may be causing problems. Or perhaps litigation is needed to ensure your rights are upheld. Whatever the answer, a diligent employment lawyer can help.

Continue reading "Long Island Sisters File Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Restaurant Owner" »

Verizon Communications Inc. will pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit over unlawful policies for disabled workers, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said in resolving its largest discrimination case, Bloomberg News reports.

This is great news for those protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act, which aims to afford all Americans the same rights, regardless of physical or mental setbacks.

Unfortunately, there are still many claims of discrimination in New York and elsewhere throughout the country. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there were 99,922 charges of workplace discrimination in 2010, which was up about 7.1 percent from 2009. Of those, 25,156, or 25.2 percent, were related to discrimination based on disability.

In the Verizon case, the New-York based telecommunications company fired or disciplined 24 employees when they needed more time off than allowed by the company's leave policies. The company refused to make exceptions for disabled workers who needed "reasonable accommodations" in order to work, according to a statement released by the commission.

"Hopefully this nationwide decree will further public awareness of the importance of engaging in an individualized interactive process to determine whether a disabled employee must be accommodated" under U.S. laws, P. David Lopez, the agency's general counsel, said in the statement.

Employees should be aware that there are many forms of discrimination that can affect them, ranging from not being hired because of a non job skill related reason to not getting promotions based on skin color or other attributes.

A number of federal and state laws prohibit companies from discrimination in the workplace. While businesses have some leeway in how they treat employees -- such as requiring certain dress, hair styles, etc., there are many things they can't legally require you to do.

And your boss can't deny you promotions, training opportunities, key assignments and other perks based on unlawful reasons, such as:

• National origin
• Sex
• Race and color
• Age
• Creed
• Disability
• Marital status
• Sexual orientation
• Familial status
• Military status
• Arrest/conviction record
• Status as a victim of domestic violence
• Predisposed genetic characteristics

New York has taken many steps to ensure its citizens have recourse if they encounter unfair treatment for any of these reasons.

And while the New York City Commission on Human Rights and other governmental agencies are paid to help those who face discrimination, the process can be long and drawn out and may not ensure the best results. It is best to first consult with an attorney if you feel your rights have been violated at work.

Continue reading "Verizon Resolves Disability Workers Case for $20 Million" »

A lawsuit filed by five former Starbucks assistant store managers in Long Island and New York has been dismissed by a judge, CNBC reports.

A federal judge found that the world's largest coffee chain didn't cheat employees out of customer tips. In an ideal world, the employee/employer relationship is comfortable, smooth and without conflict. But in reality, there are times when New York employee benefits or other work-related issues come up and need to be addressed.

Often, it's important to consult with an employment law attorney to make sure an employer is following the rules.

In the Starbucks case, the assistant managers alleged that the plaintiffs had a right to share in money left in the plexiglass cube containers known as tip boxes that the company places beside cash registers. The former employees also alleged the company coerced or required them to put tips that customers left them personally into the boxes for all employees.

The conflict comes between baristas and shift supervisors, who are typically part-time hourly workers and store managers and assistant store managers, who are typically salaried and receive other benefits, such as holiday and sick pay and life insurance. The former group handle and receive tip box proceeds, according to the court rulings, while there is no written company policy regarding the latter group.

The former managers alleged Starbucks violated state labor law by denying them tips, given that they performed similar duties to eligible workers, and forcing them to contribute to tip pools. But the federal judge said the "plain language" of state labor law doesn't grant workers any right to share in such pools.

Wage issues between employers and employees can be a difficult issue to bring up. For one, with New York's unemployment rate at 7.9 percent in May, according to the New York State Department of Labor, people are willing to deal with some injustices to keep a steady paying job. Many people are searching for a job and therefore losing a job after complaining about a lost benefit or wage can be difficult for some people to consider.

But while rocking the boat may not be your style, holding companies accountable for breaking the law is necessary. There's a reason there are laws on the books that regulate how employers are supposed to treat their workers and what obligations they have to create a fair environment where benefits are paid properly.

There are many areas of New York Employment Law that can help address and correct problems in the workplace. Many issues relate to unpaid benefits, wages and other matters businesses should be handling for their workers, such as:

• Pensions
• Health plans
• HIPAA
• COBRA
• Severance
• Fiduciary responsibilities
• 401(k) plans
• Compliance

Handling these matters requires care and yet the proper amount of force to resolve the issue and keep the employee from suffering discrimination and other wrongs on the job. Consulting with a Labor Lawyer can help you deal with the issue quickly and without litigation.

Continue reading "Starbucks Tips Lawsuit Dismissed in New York Court" »

A Brooklyn woman has sued "Completely Bare" spas and owner Cindy Barshop, alleging she was discriminated against the owner and the company because she is black, The New York Post reports. Barshop is a star on the television show "Real Housewives of New York City."

Sadly, discrimination in New York isn't uncommon. Many workplaces discriminate against their employees, whether intentionally or accidentally. Regardless of the reason, it's wrong. But there are other times when employees falsely accuse companies of discrimination simply to try to get a pay day. Hiring New York Employment Lawyers either to sue or defend from a discrimination lawsuit is vital.

According to The Post, a 25-year-old black woman applied online and was hired over the phone to work at the company's Fifth Avenue flagship shop in March. When she started, her lawsuit claims, employees didn't properly train her, commented that she was hired to "inject some color" into the company and that she was fired a week after she complained to Barshop about her treatment. The company said the woman was fired because of the quality of her work.

The Real Housewives of New York City is a reality television series featuring several women, many of whom aren't actually married, and their high-class escapades in Manhattan. The show airs on Bravo.

This appears to be a case where the woman will have to show a jury she suffered from discrimination, while the company and employees may very well say she was just bad at her job. While the New York State Division of Human Rights can work out many discrimination complaints, sometimes governmental agencies don't work quickly enough and don't put in the kind of personal touch needed in such a case.

Employment Lawyers have been handling these types of complaints and cases for decades. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and shouldn't suffer from employers or co-workers treating them differently. This goes for areas of life other than employment, such as housing and public accommodations.

In 2010, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 99,922 complaints of discrimination, which was up 7 percent from 2009. Among those complaints, 35,890 of those complaints were based on race-related discrimination, about 36 percent of the total number.

While the United States prides itself on equality and freedom, discrimination still happens today. Whether it happens out in the open or occurs in decisions made in closed-door meetings, discrimination can make a workplace difficult to bear.

But there are also times when employers are unfairly targeted by employees who don't do a good job and take it as discrimination. Companies have a right to hire and fire employees, depending on the terms of their contracts, if they do a bad job. Sometimes, employees look for an excuse to sue, hoping they can get a cash settlement. If this is the case, companies should vigorously defend themselves from this type of litigation.

It usually takes the skills of an experienced law firm to sort out legitimate lawsuits from those that are flagrantly filed by disgruntled employees.

If you feel you have been subjected to discrimination, set up a consultation so we can determine the best course of action for your case. And if you own a company and face a lawsuit that could be potentially damaging to your reputation and revenue streams, contact us today so we can assess the case.

Continue reading "Real Housewives of New York City Star Sued For Discrimination" »

Nine middle-aged cocktail servers at Resorts Casino Hotel in Atlantic City recently filed a discrimination lawsuit, alleging they were fired to make way for younger, sexier women who would look good in skimpy costumes, pressofAtlanticCity.com reports.

Discrimination Law Attorneys offer decades of experience handling New York labor law issues. Discrimination in the workplace is nothing new and unfortunately it happens every day. Sometimes it's obvious, as in a person being denied a promotion for no good reason, and sometimes decisions are made behind closed doors and require whistleblowers to come forward. But hiring the right law firm can help employees get justice from a frustrating situation.

The lawsuit filed by the nine women comes on the heels of a suit filed in March by 46 former cocktail servers, who alleged they were also fired because they didn't appear sexy enough in the casino's new Roaring '20s outfits. In a statement to the media, the casino defended its hiring and firing practices.

According to statistics from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, age discrimination is on the rise in recent years. In 2010, 23,264 claims of age discrimination were lodges with the federal agency, which is up from 15,785 in 1997. That's a 47 percent increase. Nearly 25,000 claims were filed in 2008.

According to the EEOC, 99,922 claims of discrimination were filed in 2010 and age discrimination made up 23 percent of the claims. Retaliation, race, sex and disability claims were all more frequent.

Many older Americans have experienced age discrimination at work, whether they are being denied promotions or training opportunities because companies assume they are resistant to technology and change in the workplace. In similar situations to the one reported in Atlantic City, many older employees are being fired and replaced by younger employees who have less qualifications simply because they may be cheaper.

And this type of discrimination isn't limited to private companies. Municipalities and publicly funded operations aren't immune. It can be retaliation-based, but also just a lack of proper training and a continued system of unlawful thinking that can cause a company to treat employees unfairly.

With the economy so rocky, keeping a job is crucial. So some companies will discriminate against an employee, assuming that the person will be forced to endure the discrimination because finding a job is so tough right now. That is not right. While some people may just "suck it up" and take the discrimination, you should fight back. A successful discrimination lawsuit, while it may take time, can also help a person receive damages, back pay, future pay and other money to make up for the company's mistakes.

But keep in mind that age discrimination can happen to consumers, too. Sometimes, high-end retail shops or clubs and restaurants will deny service to customers who are older and instead cater to younger clients. There are many areas where people can be discriminated against based on their age and none can be justified.

Continue reading "Atlantic City Cocktail Waitresses Sue Resorts Casino Alleging Age Discrimination" »